and forgotten since long, but the social affinities to which peoples passionately adhere and which influences their conduct towards other national groups in the present. A Frenchman may loudly proclaim to the invading Nazi that they had a common ancestor, the appeal nine times out of ten fails to revive any feeling of tenderness or the common tie since long extinct. A Hindu may go on protesting ad nauseum that Muslim is his cousin who only recently changed faith. But does it obliterate the differences that exist between the two.. No time and space I have to dilate on the sharp contrast which the two religions present. Anyone who runs can read the difference between the two. One is a polytheist, believes more in contemplation than in action ; his attitude-towards life is that of an escape ; this world is a deception for him from which he should guard ; regards the Geeta, the Vedas and the Upanishdas as his holy books ; religion to him, is more a matter of belief ; holds some rivers as sacred ; loves a pilgrimage to Hardwar, Benares, Muttra, Badri Nath, Rameshwar, Ganga and a host of other sacred places ; his religion colours his diet and dress ; the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are his great epics ; worships
the cow ; and his national heroes are those who had the misfortune to fight against those of the Muslims. The Muslim on the other hand is a monotheist, accepts Mohammed as his Prophet and the Quran in Arabic as his holy book ; he is vigorously engaged in doings pertaining to this world ; his holy place lies far away in the heart of a desert region ; slaughter the cow ; religion to him is made of social conduct which often brings him in grips with the Hindu ; regards Urdu as his national language ; h5s national heroes are the Crusaders of Islam and his dress and diet differ violently from those of the Hindus.
But what is meat for the Muslims is poison for the Sikhs. Borh eat meat but the meat prepared in the Sikh mode is heresy on the part of the Muslim to take and he would like to chop off the head of the person who offered him rather than take a slice from the dish. Sikh is a monotheist but not of the Islamic pattern. To call him a Hinclu.i is to insult him ; to say that he had anything common with the Muslim is to revive painful memories of how his Preceptors and heroes suffered at the hands of the Muslims. He differs from the Hindu as well as the Muslim and the Christian in matters of religion, language, tradition, social custom, diet and attitude towards life. The Hindu doctrine of Ahamsa has no hold on him and he scoffs at renunciation and asceticism. Most, not all of the Sikhs, came from the Hindu stock and: – there is no dearth of well-meaning Hindu friends who would affectionately, rather lustily proclaim the Sikhs as Hindus on the ground of their belonging to the same race. But to a Sikh the expression of such affection is nauseating and he sees the hidden motive and does not reciprocate.
An angel alone would like and be able to, produce unity out of this diversity. We frankly profess to live in a world of mortals and confess to be not masters of angelic capacities.
A community designing to entrap another nation would not mind invoking the help of old communities which have since become extinct. Even a Muslim having lately pictured up the art of cunning diplomacy will hold out brilliant future of political peace and prosperity for the Sikhs, if they placing faith in his generosity would only pawn their political future into his hands. That he does and should make such promige is natural ; that the Sikh should refuse to be so assured unless he be- comes suddenly oblivious of his past history is also obviously natural.
Race, religion, language, mode of attirement, staple diet, tastes and temperaments, aesthetic sense and attitude towards life all differ as we travel from one part to the other of the country which for geographical economy is called India. One thing of course is common to all the people of the sub-continent ; they all belong to the same species of Homo sapiens. At last we have discovered a biological unity. But of what practical use ? The peoples of India can possibly lead to a forced agglomeration which with deep differences in the very nature of its component units can never be hoped to develop common culture. To forge one democracy for the millions of the country is to sow seeds of permanent strife. In a society so flagrantly heterogeneous pure majority rule will be a negation of democracy. Decisions of the majority composed of members of one nation can have no validity to the minority composed of the members of another nation. Their only sanction will be the might of the superior numbers of the enacting majority. In the eyes of the minority it will be tyranny par excellence. . Climate very largely determines one’s diet, mode of his dress, occupation that he wishes to follow, and last of all his biological growth. This produces distinguishable natural characteristics and social traits. Social harmony lies not in blatantly ignoring differences but in recognizing them and making adjustments accordingly.
Unity-wallas versus Diversity-wallas might be considered a duel between interested combatanes. Let us seek the aid of disinterested observers who came to India inthe past. Certainly they cannot be accused of giving a deliberately garbled picture of what they saw for any political motive. No observer, traveller, politician, geographer or a historian remained unaffected by the striking diversity that India presented and does present to-day. Their views on this aspect alone, if collected, would swell into a big volume.
India does not present a picture of unity but that of an unparalleled diversity. Should anyone conceive the idea of continuing their forced unity, the unity of common subjection ever after its break up by the withdrawl of the British, he wishes to run the country with blood, for whereas the people of India desire to liquidate slavery, he on the other hand desires its renewal with a Hindu or a Muslim overseer.
